DOM bridges and barriers: systematic review and survey

Author

Emily Nazario | UC Santa Cruz | enazario’@’ucsc.edu

Published

October 8, 2025

Questions

Which themes appear in both sources?

What new information have surveys added beyond what was already written in the literature?

How do themes vary between fishing vs. shipping contexts?

How do themes vary with positionality of the respondent (surveys only)?

Result 1: Bridges and barriers according to review and survey

Here I’ve presented three options for presenting the themes and sub-themes identified in the review and surveys. I’d love feedback on which option or combination of options best visualize the codes! Depending on your feedback, I’ll then spend time cleaning up the best option.

Option 1 - Sankey diagram

Plot below only presents the review themes and sub-themes. If this is the best way to communicate the codes, I will add a diagram visualizing the survey codes.

# A tibble: 2 × 2
  bridge_barr totals
  <chr>        <int>
1 Barrier        201
2 Bridge         509
# A tibble: 6 × 2
  code_cat           totals
  <chr>               <int>
1 Data barrier           86
2 Data bridge           173
3 Ecological barrier     13
4 Ecological bridge     141
5 Social barrier        102
6 Social bridge         195

Option 2 - Sunburst figure

Plots below are from an old draft of the review themes and sub-themes. If this is the nicest way to plot the codes, I will update the diagram and generate one for the survey themes as well.

Option 3 - Table

Code category Code label
Data bridge Management scale aligns with system needs
Data bridge Target species data availability
Data bridge Access to advanced technology and techniques
Data bridge Data transparency
Data bridge Abiotic data availability
Data bridge Resource use data availability
Social bridge Resource availability
Social bridge Pre-existing conditions
Social bridge Adoption incentives
Social bridge Feasibility
Social bridge Co-management and communication
Ecological bridge Expected climate change induced range shifts
Ecological bridge Distinct habitat preferences
Ecological bridge Biotic indicators of target species presence
Ecological bridge Abiotic indicators of target species presence
Ecological bridge Highly mobile target species
Ecological bridge Life history information available for target species
Ecological bridge Fine-scale management appropriate for target species
Code category Code label
Data barrier Gaps and inaccuracy
Data barrier Management scales do not align with system needs
Data barrier Model abuse
Ecological barrier Need for multispecies management
Data barrier Climate change adding uncertainty to target species habitat use
Social barrier Indirect socioeconomic consequences
Social barrier Discontinuity
Social barrier Poor communication and outreach
Social barrier Poor program implementation
Social barrier Cost
Code category Code label
Implementation bridge Behavior change
Implementation bridge Regulated program
Implementation bridge Volunteer based program
Implementation bridge Simplicity
Implementation bridge Online presence
Implementation bridge Tailored to user group
Implementation bridge Clear objectives
Implementation bridge Communication mechanisms
Social bridge Fleet buy-in
Social bridge External factors increasing participation
Social bridge Communication and transparency
Social bridge Adoption incentives
Social bridge Observable progress
Implementation bridge Program outreach
Social bridge Co-management
Data bridge Rapid data delivery
Ecological bridge Distinct habitat preferences
Ecological bridge Predictable spatial use
Code category Code label
Implementation barrier Difficulty assessing impact
Implementation barrier Limited relevance
Data barrier Missing cross-program comparisons
Data barrier Gaps and inaccuracy
Data barrier Lack of near real-time data
Ecological barrier Unpredictable bycatch patterns
Social barrier Cost
Social barrier Discontinuity
Social barrier Confidentiality
Social barrier Lack of incentives
Social barrier Volunteer programs reduce participation
Social barrier Regulated programs reduce participation
Social barrier External factors reducing participation
Social barrier Poor communication and outreach
Social barrier Interest-holder conflicts
Social barrier Stigmatization

Result 2: Codes by review and survey

Result 2.1: Frequencies according to review and survey

Code appearance frequencies across all bridge OR barrier codes. The proportions reported in these figures represent the percent of codes that theme or sub-theme comprises.

{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “12in”}

{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “12in”}

Result 2.2: Time series of top theme from literature, co-management

Grey is the number of DOM publications per year, while blue is the number of times co-management and communication was referenced. Whanted to see if this code was referenced more over time, but seems that it just tracks the number of DOM publications. Likely won’t include.

Result 2.3: Heat maps of theme co-occurence

This heatmap represents number of times two codes co-occurered together in the same article, or “theme co-occurence”. I have filtered totals greater than or equal to 11, which was the 90% quantile of the co-occurrence total data set. Blue text represents data bridges and barriers, grey text represents ecological bridges and barriers, and orange text represents social bridges and barriers.

{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “8in”}

Result 3: Variations by industry

3.1: Management and conservation problems DOM has been used to address

3.2: Fishing vs. shipping

{fig-align=“center” width=“5in”, height = “8in”}

{fig-align=“center” width=“5in”, height = “8in”}

Result 4: Variations by position (survey only)

{fig-align=“center” width=“8in”, height = “6in”}